|
Point of View with Barb
Sumner Burstyn - February 2 2004
Parents denying the right to know who
you are
At first reading it seemed like a breakthrough. In Britain, the
Government has just announced its plans to remove the right to anonymity
for people who donate sperm, eggs and embryos.
Under a storm of protest from organisations fearing the drying-up
of sperm supplies, Melanie Johnston, the Public Health Minister
in Britain, said she firmly believed donor-conceived people have
a right to information about their genetic origins.
Scandinavian countries have always had open sperm donor files and
most clinics in the US have the option of open files, while clinics
in New Zealand do not accept anonymous donors, so the British move
is very timely.
Except, that is, for an entire generation of donor-conceived people.
For them Johnston's ruling is just lip service because even if the
new British regulations get parliamentary approval, they will not
come into force until next year and are not retroactive, meaning
that the first time an 18-year-old will be able to find out the
identity of their donor will be 2023.
What does this mean for people conceived anonymously before this
legislation takes effect? Ask most adopted people about their genetic
heritage and they'll describe their sense of history as blankness,
as a gaping hole that could be filled with anything, good or evil.
They talk of those who know their genetic history as being complete,
as having a starting point from which they can create themselves.
Adopted people inhabit negative social statistics in disproportionate
numbers.
From a medical perspective the need to know has never been more
imperative. Genetics is becoming a major factor in the prediction,
diagnosis and treatment of all kinds of disorders, from genetic
mutations to cancers that stalk generations of a single family.
According to a paper by James R. Lupski, MD, PhD, by age 25, 8 per
cent of us will be diagnosed with a disorder that has a major genetic
component. There are even organisations now that will create therapies
and preventative treatments tailored to specific genetic make-up.
On the behavioural side there is increasing evidence that the old
nature v nurture paradigm is heavily weighted in favour of heredity.
For instance, a report in the journal Science suggests the reason
jet lag hits some travellers harder than others may lie in our mothers'
genes.
Other studies suggest that for boys, aggressive antisocial behaviour
like bullying can be inherited through the genes, while girls can
inherit non-aggressive antisocial behaviour like truancy and theft.
But none of this seems to have touched the cloistered world of
anonymous sperm, egg and embryo donation, the foundation of the
reproductive technology industry in Britain.
It's as if this branch of the scientific community is suffering
from a profound disconnect, a reductionism that ignores the resultant
life experience of the products of their microscopes, Petri dishes
and even the anonymous turkey basters of Man Not Included, a company
set up to service the maternal desires of the lesbian community.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the whole scenario is
the response of parents. Research in Britain in 2001 showed that
nine out of 10 parents whose children were conceived using donor
sperm have not told them the truth. Many parents of 10- to 12-year-olds
were too scared about how the revelation would affect their relationship
with the child, and half said they had no intention of revealing
the secret even when the child was much older.
Could there be a more blatant or selfish example of misuse of the
parental role?
In New Zealand, Professor Ken Daniels of Canterbury University
has written a book for those involved in the donor circle. Building
Families with the Assistance of Donor Insemination is to be published
later this year and covers issues such as the secrecy, shame and
fear associated with creating families through technology.
Families based in lies are not healthy, he says, and notes that
new legislation, due to become law in the middle of the year, will
see all donors registered, with the Registrar of Births, Deaths
and Marriages.
Every clique has its hierarchy. In the world of reproductive technology,
people conceived and born the old-fashioned way and then adopted
now have the right to know their genetic heritage. But while Britain
attempts not to override past agreements of anonymity with donors,
while it tries to keep up the supply of new donors, it is failing
miserably to protect the lives of those already born and those who
will be born over the next year.
To allow technology to wilfully create an underclass of people
and to support parents in denying children their genetic history
is to continue the social, medical and emotional disadvantages suffered
for generations by adopted people. To sustain that disadvantaged
position through legislation is profoundly unjust.
Oscar Wilde said that one's past is what one is. He may not have
meant the hereditary past, but with science dissolving the barriers
between generations, his sentiment stands. What further evidence
does Britain need?
ENDS
© Barbara Sumner Burstyn, 2003
Send your comments to:
Barbara Sumner
Burstyn.
|
